Gorsuch is doing a bang-up job during his confirmation hearings, there’s no denying it.

Seriously, I can’t wait for this guy to take his place on the bench.  Franken is tough and any nominee of Trump’s who comes up against him had best be prepared.  Unlike DeVos, Gorsuch is both well-prepared for running the gauntlet and up to the job for which he’s interviewing.

The Democratic rage over Garland is understandable, but useless.  Well, I guess I could just say that of their ever-present rage on every single nominee and issue.  Was the GOP’s evil plan to refuse to consider any nominee of Obama’s during his last year in office diabolical?  Yep.

Honestly, I’m amazed that McConnell pulled it off.  It’s not the sort of resolve I’m accustomed to seeing from the GOP Senate.   Even if you disagree with the Senate Republicans for sinking Garland’s nomination, you do have to respect the gutsiness of their gamble.  Garland was probably as much a “meet you in the middle” nominee Obama could have offered up.  Had Clinton won the election, she would have been completely justified in nominating a younger, less narcoleptic version of Justice Ginsburg.

I don’t think the Senate GOP’s gamble was wrong.  The Supreme Court has become too powerful and too disrespectful of states’ rights.  In the hands of a liberal majority, its activist bent would have been too much for those of us on the right to bear.  It was this, I believe, more than any other factor that brought Trump victory in 2016.

It was definitely my primary reason for voting for Trump, as I’ve said before.  There will be no compromise on nominations.  We have this one chance to influence the makeup of the Court for a generation and we’re going to fucking milk it.

At this time, Democrats are going to have to accept that #Resistance is futile and that Garland is not going to magically be nominated on the grounds that his seat was “stolen”.  They lost the Senate then they lost the White House.  When you lose elections, you don’t get the things you want, guys.  As someone who rooted for the losing side four and eight years ago, I can tell you all about this.

Further, Gorsuch will be nominated.  There is no compelling reason for Democrats to take this fight to the mat, as terrified as Democratic Senators are of their base’s rage.  All that’s going to happen once Gorsuch is confirmed is that the Court will have the same ideological divide it had before Scalia died.

Save it for the inevitable open liberal justice’s seat.  It can’t be that far into the future, guys.

The way Garland was handled easily could have blown up in the GOP’s face. Hell, it still might.  If the GOP loses the Senate in 2018 (unlikely), it would be fair play for Democrats to do the same in 2020 should one of the liberal justices die or retire.  Turnabout’s fair play, y’all.

For now, I’m very happy with our nominee.



  1. Gorsuch is good at the “gotcha” game. There’s a reason he’s been given the ABA’s highest rating.

    Also RIP Chuck Barris, which really sucks, I had my mind warped by The Gong Show when I was a kid.

  2. So you would like a justice that follows the Constitution literally and, to accomplish that, the GOP literally ignored the Constitution for almost a year and didn’t even give the sitting President’s nominee the courtesy of a hearing.
    In order to maintain a balance, which is not in the Constitution and which has given us such stellar decisions as Citizens United, you are ok with ignoring the Holy of Holies.
    Meanwhile the President who nominated Gorsuch is under an FBI investigation (and didn’t win the poplar vote.)
    But if the Democrats mention any of that, or try to get Gorsuch to commit to a stance other than ‘I will look into that,’ they are being ragey.
    Imagine if Obama had pushed Garland through as a recess appointment and I came here to tell you it was not wrong because he had a mandate and got me what I wanted.
    The level of smugness you are oozing in this post is worse than anything I’ve seen from the liberals and I read stuff like this: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/03/senate_republicans_are_outraged_that_anyone_would_question_neil_gorsuch.html

  3. 1. Nothing says that the Senate has to approve any president’s SCOTUS nominees. There have been multiple nominees who the Senate refused to even consider. Google John Crittenden. There’s nothing unusual about what happened with Merrick.

    2. The balance isn’t in the Constitution but we need a conservative majority to prevent the Supreme Court from violating the Constitution. For example, you tend to forget that the whole reason Hillary was so interested in Citizens United is so she can stop people from making documentaries that were critical of her. Free speech is in the Constitution and I’d like to keep it that way TYVM.

    3. Oh, NOW all of a sudden, you care about presidents being under FBI investigation. I’ll remind you that the popular vote isn’t in the Constitution. The electoral vote is and Trump won it. Your side lost and doesn’t control the Senate. So that means that Trump gets to nominate whoever he wants to and the Senate can confirm that nominee. Trump isn’t the subject of the FBI’s investigation, as far as we know, and even if he were the Constitution doesn’t say one word about it. Again, you lost and have to accept that Trump gets to nominate SCOTUS justices.

    Yes, I reserve the right to be smug about this. I wanted Trump to win so I’d get nominees like Gorsuch. I’m getting what I want and I’m going to relish it.

    The impotent liberal rage over it all is only feeding my smugness.

  4. What happened to Garland is absolutely unprecedented. I would have no issue with them refusing to confirm him. To reuse to even hold a hearing is a slap in the face.
    Crittenden’s name as sent to the Senate in December, after the Electoral college had already voted in Jackson. There is no comparison.

  5. What’s the difference between not holding hearings and not confirming a nominee? They knew they weren’t going to confirm Garland. Why bother?

    In any event, had the Senate voted Garland down, you know full well that Democrats would still be claiming his seat was stolen.

    I’m not sure why Crittenden being nominated after the election matters. Both Garland and Crittenden were nominated by lame-duck presidents. Is the line for you just that an election have already been held? Seems arbitrary.

    Go read all about John Tyler’s many unsuccessful nominations at the links. It’s exactly the same situation as what happened with Garland: the majority in the Senate didn’t like the president, so they refused to consider his SCOTUS nominees. If you really think this has no precedent, you have some homework to do.



  6. Did you know gorsuch is an episcopalian? If not look into the political viewpoints of that sect. I think you’d be quite favorable to his nomination if you knew where the episcopal church stood on social issues.

    Gorsuch has actually fallen out of favor with what I call “the southern coalition of Christian cults” specifically because they found out his faith and shit a canary.

  7. what’s your cut off for lame duck? 4 years? 1 year?
    I’ve done my homework, thank you. There has not been a case of a nominee being refused a hearing with almost a year to go in the President’s term

  8. Your comment reminds me of this from Justice Scalia himself:

    Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

    Amazing to think that we’ll have one SCOTUS justice who isn’t Catholic or Jewish when Gorsuch is confirmed. He’s also a genuine Westerner, being from Colorado.

  9. I actually think that Gorsuch is much better choice than we could have expected from Trump. I am uncomfortably agreeing with Lindsey Graham that this is a decent nomination from a shit President.
    However, he is not as good on social issues are you think. For example, his ruling on insurance coverage of contraception whould make any Christian cult happy.

  10. Again, read up on the SCOTUS nominees of President John Tyler. He nominated Walworth in March 1844, eight months before the election and a year before his successor took office. The Senate refused to hold a hearing and Tyler withdrew the nomination. Then they did the same thing with Spencer’s nomination.

    He had two vacancies. One opened up in 1843 and the other in 1844. One of them wasn’t filled until his successor took office–and again, that was after the Senate had refused to even consider some of his nominees.

    As I said in the post, this is a losing argument for Democrats any way you want to have it. Gorsuch will be confirmed.

    For you to say that this is totally unprecedented is extremely easy to disprove though. I’m not even sure what you’re hoping to achieve with staking your case on details that are both mundane and wrong.

  11. And I thought Garland was the best we could have hoped for from Obama. But I wanted someone closer to Scalia and was perfectly copacetic with waiting Obama out for the chance to have one.

    The real fight is going to come when one of the liberal justices or Kennedy goes, if it happens between now and 2020. I’m not making any popcorn until then.

  12. As I’ve said, I recognize that Gorsuch will be confirmed and that he is not that bad.
    But I also recognize that what the GOP pulled last year contributed greatly to the current feelings on the left and the divisions in the country.
    I stand by my statement that it’s unprecedented. The rules were different in the 1840s. I am happy to look it up for you, but you are right, that’s not the point.
    The point is, as we on the left see it, the Senate refused to do it’s Constitutionally mandated job and work with the President to fill the vacancy. We are mad about it. You think it’s ok, because you got the nominee you want, in the end.
    Had Obama stooped to their level and done a recess appointment, you would be frothing at the mouth about it. I would like to think that I would still have had the presence of mind not to gloat.
    I am glad you are getting what you want, I am just disappointed that you so unbelievably childish about it.

  13. This man is smooth and exemplary as a judge. I was floored when he was nominated, i did not expect Trump to pick someone like him at all. All the conservative /libertarian talking heads, looked at the list that trump submitted as potential nominees and Gorsuch was at the top of the wish list for most of them. They were stunned.

    Assuming on of the liberal Justices shakes off the mortal coil, would it be to much to ask if Trump could pick someone who is Very Libertarian? that would shake up the court for sure.
    Wishful thinking but…..

  14. The Senate doesn’t have any requirement to vote on or even consider any president’s particular nominee for any office. They can refuse to confirm nominees just because they don’t like the president or they’re mad about the Super Bowl or whatever. This has been demonstrated several times in our history. If you don’t want to acknowledge that, I’ll leave it alone, but it doesn’t change anything.

    It’s part of the separation of powers. The president makes appointments and the Senate either confirms them, rejects them, or ignores the hell out of them. It has happened before and will happen again, like so much Cylons wiping out humans and vice versa.

    I wouldn’t have been angry at all if Obama had made a recess appointment. He had the constitutional authority to do that. It wouldn’t have amounted to much since the GOP Senate could have removed that nominee in the next session, but Obama certainly could have tried.

    It’s like how I thought McConnell didn’t have the balls to see it through, Obama probably didn’t either. Well, it turns out that McConnell did. Maybe Obama would make the recess appointment if he had it to do all over again. Who can say?

    And I don’t think I’m being childish at all. When Democrats indulge in Make Believe Thinking and try to get their way with these Make Believe Solutions, as they have been since November I’m going to mock the ever-living shit out of them when they inevitably fail.

    I call out my side when they do stupid things. Responsible Democrats should do the same and stop encouraging these dumb tactics that don’t accomplish anything and worsen the divide that you are worried about. I say “save it for when it will count.” This isn’t that time.

    I’m being a smug asshole, sure, but not childish.

  15. Do you have the text of the decision in question? I’d like to read it before I make an opinion

  16. Yep. I think it will be refreshing because I know what his heartfelt beliefs are, but I also see he hasn’t blanketed the court with sjw, or goddurn these liberals type of decisions.

    I can tell by the questioning that republicans are in the mood to test r v. W again but his answer about it was great: it’s the law of the land.

  17. Only once today, but for the most part I think almost any sects created here in America are cults. I think lds, mormons, baptists, born agains, etc are cults.

    My personal belief. Does this trigger you?

  18. It’s ok, you’re entitled to use a deliberately charged, offensive term to refer to 1/3 of Americans. They’re only deplorable duckers clinging to their religion, not one of the important people we care about anyways. /s

  19. Umm, I don’t question their faith in their cults. I have no doubt hardcore scientologists believe in the tenets of their faith as well. For me, it is not Christianity unless it is rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ and derives from Protestants, Lutherans, Catholics or the Church of England.

    The ones made here are a shit show.

  20. I’m not sure I can give you Baptists. What’s the argument for them not being Christians? First time I’ve heard of this.

    I’m on the fence with Mormons. Even if their religion is more bullshitty than most, I think they’re nice people. Not scary enough to be cultish.

  21. Garland should have received a hearing…and Obama should have promptly been told no. Whining about it now does nothing. The seat wasn’t stolen, and I thank heaven above that Garland is not sitting on the Supreme Court today.

    I thought Franken did a brilliant job of demonstrating why he should have remained a comedian, and those who voted for him are all idiots.

  22. Technically any organized religion could be considered a cult. Those who use the word are generally just trying to belittle someone else’s beliefs, or get a rise out of someone. It’s ignorant at best.

  23. I am thrilled at the quality of Judge Gorsuch. I could not have hoped for a better candidate, and the way he handles himself before these self-righteous idiots in the Senate (on both sides) only increase my opinion of him.

  24. Maybe. If you a Christian raised in the Christian faith would you identify mormons as a Christian faith? Let me ask you that way then.

  25. Sorry, got busy, but not ignoring you.
    I don’t really care which flavor of fairy tale the man listens to on Sundays. I judge based on his actions on the bench.
    He’s gone out of his way to be anti-Planned Parenthood https://thinkprogress.org/neil-gorsuchs-crusade-against-planned-parenthood-78af3a29f0f3#.34eimf66g
    He believes strongly that employers can impose their religious beliefs on employees: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/12/12-6294.pdf
    This is problematic on two fronts – he feels that corporations have religious beliefs, which probably means he also feels they have the right to free speech (Citizens United.) He also feels this very strongly, because even asking an employer to fill out a form is sinful: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/15-105-op-below.pdf

    He’s also written a whole book against assisted suicide, which, to me, is a total religion v. privacy and bodily autonomy lithmus test. I am at a point in my life where I am getting further and further away from having to worry about abortion and closer to having to worry about dying with dignity, so this one worries me, even though it doesn’t get as much attention from the left.

  26. Most of those you mention there as rooted in the teaching of Jesus, are them selves splinter groups of the origin of the faith. Most of living Christians if they actually encountered some one or a group that practiced as the Christian Cult did back in 300 AD, would barely recognize it.

  27. that is one of the great things about them, they might have a weird ass religion, but they go out of their way to be nice and polite..

  28. they are cults, until they are in the majority or just in power. Christianity was still a cult, when Constantine died, he gave them legitimacy, at his baptism ,.heh right before eh died.
    then the ball began to roll had as it was more and more accepted, in less than 100 years the Christians went from a cult to the major growing Religion, and in firm control of Rome and the surrounding areas. pretty damm impressive.

  29. Anybody else watching the thrilling edge-of-your-seat Judiciary Committee vote?

    Senator Coons scolded the Senate for being partisan repeatedly, then made a partisan vote against Gorsuch. That’s a new level of idiocy/hypocrisy.

  30. Nuclear!

    Senate Republicans changed longstanding rules on Thursday to clear the way for the confirmation of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court, bypassing a precedent-breaking Democratic filibuster by allowing the nomination to go forward on a simple majority vote.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: